Keystone XL Foes May Appeal to State Supreme Court

Foes of the Keystone XL pipeline said Friday they may appeal a South Dakota judge’s decision upholding state regulators approval for the pipeline to cross the state.

The Associated Press reported two groups are weighing whether to raise the issue to the state Supreme Court while an attorney for an American Indian tribe in South Dakota also said its lawyers are examining an appeal.

A state judge last month affirmed a Public Utilities Commission decision that tribes, landowners and others challenged.

Robin Martinez, an attorney for Dakota Rural Action called the judge’s decision a “disappointment.” The organization is considering an appeal

“The clear effect is on the landowners who are now living with this perpetual threat of having their land taken away from them for this pipeline that may or may not ever happen,” Martinez said. “That is a heavy burden.”

The Keystone XL pipeline would move crude oil from Alberta, Canada across Montana and South Dakota to Nebraska, where it would connect with existing pipelines feeding refineries along the Gulf Coast.

The line would cross a portion of Tripp County.

Terry Cunha, a spokesman for the pipeline developer TransCanada, praised the decision in a statement saying the project will help U.S. energy security, create well paying jobs and offer substantial economic benefits.

American Indian tribes, some landowners and environmental groups oppose the pipeline fearing it would contaminate water supplies and contribute to pollution.

The PUC initially authorized TransCanada’s project in 2010 but the permit had to be revisited because construction didn’t start within the required four years.

The panel last year voted to accept TransCanada’s guarantee that it would meet conditions laid out by the commission when it first approved that state’s portion of the project.

Opponents appealed the commission’s decision to the state court. Judge John Brown wrote that the issues opponents raised have been adequately addressed by the commission or aren’t appropriate to be addressed in this case.